Have something to say?

Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?

It is not a sin to share software

RMS emphasizes that users should have the right to share computer programs as nobody loses a copy whenever it is shared. If copyright law was to be removed, there wouldn't be any requirement to follow the redistribution requirements of the GPL which would likely mean that people will not share source code. That's all right because we will also have the right to share other people's work as well. We also retain the right to share existing code or publish new code.

Your missing a major point. Open Source folks can go on just as they have before, with one caveat, any business, such as Tivo, a primary reason for GPL3, no longer even has to share back. MS can take the code for free and there is nothing that says that they have to share one dratted thing. In other words kiss the 4 freedoms good bye.

> any business [...] no longer even has to share back [...] MS can take the code for free and there is nothing that says that they have to share one dratted thing

That is correct; the derivates of free software would potentially be non-free. Without any legal obligation to share back changes to the community, many software proprietors would probably take code, change it and not share the modified code when the binary is distributed.

> In other words kiss the 4 freedoms good bye.
The four freedoms could *potentially* be lost on the *derivatives* of free software. The software that is already free will always remain free.

So what would be the good thing about this? The software black market will cease to exist. It would be legal to share copies of Microsoft Windows XP, Adobe Photoshop or any computer game that is past the copyright term. It would be completely legal to start a software distribution service - that is you get paid for sharing someone else's work.

So what will happen to free software? Free code will be used in non-free programs and then it will become non-free. But that's alright, free code will still remain free. Open source development would work like how the BSD projects are working.

BTW azerthoth, I think your understanding of a trade secret is incorrect. IANAL, but as I understand it, once a trade secret is made public the company loses all rights to it. I believe this is true even if it becomes public due to illegal acts on the part of one or more people (those those people could still be prosecuted for their actions). So, if you get a copy of a trade secreted program, you should be able to use it.

Incorrect sir, a trade secret, if revealed by illegal means, remains a trade secret. A good example is Mcdonalds secret sauce. Every body and their brother knows that it is 1000 island dressing, still it's exact recipe remains a guarded secret. You can't have somethng become legal via an illegal act.

If I steal a car and then sell or give it away. The recipient of it is still in possesion of stolen property and retains no rights to if found out, even if they could prove that they alteast were acting in good faith during the transaction. They still dont own the car, and may themselves be subject to criminal charges.

*side note*
A great example of loss of control is happening right now. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/01/05/mcafe... , if the copyright were ammended to disallow or limit time for functional works the only answer could be made would be ... oh well, that whacky company got us again. ZERO protection.

If somebody misappropriates -- ie taken by illegal means or in violation of a duty to protect the secret -- a trade secret, they are liable for the misappropriation itself.
People who knowingly participate in the misappropriation can be liable for spreading the secret.

However, if the secret gets out to others, it's not a secret any more. That's why we have things like copyrights, patents, and trademarks. There are variations in state laws -- for example, I seem to remember California having a rather odd law,l though I can't remember why -- but, by and large, once the cat's out of the bag, there's not point in trying to chase it.

Actually, if copyright law were to be eliminated, _contracts_ would still exist.

The GPL is a license. I think it stands independent of copyright legislation, even if it falls under copyright _right_now_, since copyright law preceded the GPL.

One reason that California laws have been different was to protect the movie industry, to avoid all those pesky patents and "trade secrets" that Edison had on motion pictures. That's why they moved from the East coast, and their big markets, to settle in L.A.

*edit* I meant "independent of copyright law", I hope that was clear from context.

Thanks for the correction dino, did a little research following that and ran across this :

Quoting:Trade secret rights can also be lost through publication of the information, including the
posting of confidential information via modern mass communications systems, such as the
Internet or intranets. Anonymous postings, even if available for only a very short period of
time, can destroy trade secret status because millions of people could have accessed the
information even if few people in fact saw it.

However the car analogy still stands pretty well, if not in the way I stated it. If there is a reasonable consideration that the information was misappropriated then the recipient can still be held accountable for being in possession of stolen property, and the fun bits that go along with that. There are other odds and ends that can get tossed into the mix as well, up to and including the inclusion of the RICO act.

Quoting:Information that qualifies as a trade secret is subject to legal protection (against theft and misappropriation) as a form of valuable property--but only if the owner has taken the necessary steps to preserve its secrecy. If the owner has not diligently tried to keep the information secret, courts will usually refuse to extend any help to the trade secret owner if others learn of the information.

Some activities that the courts will commonly treat as trade secret theft--which means the owner will be afforded some judicial relief, such as damages or an order preventing use of the stolen information--are:

* disclosures by key employees (current and former managers, scientists and others occupying positions of trust) in violation of their duty of trust toward their employer
* disclosures by employees (current and former) in violation of a confidentiality agreement entered into with their employer
* disclosures by suppliers, consultants, financial advisors or others who signed nondisclosure agreements with the trade secret owner, promising not to disclose the information
* industrial espionage, and
* disclosures by any person owing an implied duty to the employer not to make such disclosure, such as directors, corporate offices and other high-level salaried employees.

When a disclosure is considered wrongful, the courts may also consider use of the information wrongful and issue an order (injunction) preventing its use for a particular period of time.

As a perfect example of one way to lose a trade secret, a couple purchased a house in Kentucky (I believe it was a few years ago now). When going through the attic they found an old trunk with some papers which had formerly belonged to Harland Sanders (apparently it had at one time been his house). One of those papers contained a recipe.

KFC denies that the recipe is actually theirs, of course, but they've also apparently threatened couple with legal action, which sort of belies their claim. If it actually is the recipe, and the couple chooses to publish it, there's little KFC can do, and their trade secret is gone.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]